An Open Letter to Tim Wilson MP @TimWilsonMP Sunday 24 May 2026 – 11:44 AEDT Re: National Press Club Address 20/5/26 Dear Mr Wilson, On 20 May 2026, during your address to the National Press Club, you referred to a young entrepreneur named Sienna Jovcevski and her business, Tweeny Skin. According to the official transcript and video of your speech, you stated: “At the age of 12, Sienna set up Tweeny Skin in her bedroom.” “Built after school, packed orders on weekends … reinvested basically every dollar back into the business.” “Yet while Sienna finishes her HSC, she has learned she has a shareholder who wants to take half the reward of her effort.” You later referred to this “half” as a potential 47% tax outcome when questioned by ABC journalist David Speers. Mr Speers specifically asked you: “The government says existing exemptions for small business would remain. So how exactly would Sienna lose half her profit?” You responded: “Well it depends on when Sienna chooses to opt out of her business and sell it and for what price…” You later added: “It could, depending on the exit strategy and price, ultimately face up to 47%.” Mr Speers then asked: “But is it possible she could pay no capital gains tax as well?” To which you replied: “We’re dealing with hypotheticals… It depends on when she decides to exit, it depends on what she sells for, it depends on what stage of life she’s at based on the current application of the law.” Given the seriousness and specificity of the claims made in a nationally broadcast address, and the potential for those claims to alarm small business owners and young entrepreneurs, it is reasonable for Australians to seek clarification as to the factual basis of the example you presented. Accordingly, could you please clarify the following: 1/. Prior to referencing Sienna Jovcevski and Tweeny Skin in your speech, did you make any enquiries regarding the legal ownership structure of the business? 2/. Did you seek to determine whether the business operates as: → a sole trader, → a company, → a discretionary trust, → or another legal structure? 3/. Did you seek to determine whether the business is legally owned, operated, or controlled by Sienna Jovcevski personally, or by other individuals, entities, or family structures associated with the business? 4/. Did you make any enquiries as to whether existing small business CGT concessions may apply to that business in the event of a future sale? 5/. Did you obtain or review any information regarding the approximate turnover, profitability, or scale of the business before presenting it as a national example of the impact of proposed CGT changes? 6/. Did you receive any professional taxation or legal advice supporting the proposition that the business would realistically face an effective 47% tax outcome under the circumstances you described? 7/. Given your acknowledgment that the example was hypothetical and dependent upon numerous unknown future variables, do you accept that your original framing may have conveyed a misleading level of certainty to viewers? 8/. Have you since sought clarification regarding whether your example accurately reflected the operation of Australia’s current small business #CGT concession framework? These are reasonable questions arising from statements made by a Federal Member of Parliament during a nationally televised address on taxation policy. Australians are entitled to expect that examples used in public policy debates, particularly those involving taxation and small business, are properly verified, accurately framed, and presented with appropriate factual context. We look forward to your clarification. Sincerely, The Noisy Trunk On behalf of many Australians